Private Weapons Seized in New Orleans

[Peter T.]

Does this bother anyone?

Sure, I can emphasize with our National Guard troops pulling security. Having spent considerable time in the military, I understand the need to secure the area against criminals. But what I have a problem with is military/LE officers detaining people who are simply doing what the authorities have not been capable of - that is securing themselves and their property against the looters and other hooligans who have been running around pretty much unopposed until very recently.

What happened to the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?

Granted that ANY gun owner who poses an immedate and direct threat against authorities in this circumstance should probably be arrested, however the unauthorized search and seizure of private property by the government simply for the purpose of confiscating legally-owned firearms is a frightening precedent in the US.

This does not sound like the America I know and love.


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38e21073582d.htm

[targa911S]

Not even issuing receipts so you can claim them later. I guess they will have to sue to get them back, but I heard they were not even documenting the weapons being siezed. I would be pisssed.

[jyl]

Yes, it bothers me a lot. If you're on your own property with a firearm, the authorities have no reason to consider you a looter. I imagine this is part of the forced evacuation plan.

I think this argues for having a couple of "disposable" guns that you can surrender, while keeping the better weapons hidden.

Kind of like when we used to go down to Baja for fishing and drinking, the rule was to have an old wallet with $30 and some low-value ID (library card, etc) for the Mexican cops to take, while keeping your real wallet carefully hidden.

[Joeaksa]

The NRA is on top of this as well and is working on it. Saw an alert about it a few days ago...

I would get the cops badge number and get me a new gun when things settle down. New Orleans may be buying an awful lot of new guns for residents after this...

Joe A

[jyl]

Given my rep as a liberal here, this may surprise some, but I've decided to join the NRA. I probably disagree with their membership on most things, but I do value my guns.

[legion]

I'm no expert, but under martial law, don't declarations such as "seize all firearms" carry the full weight and authority of the Constitution?

What I'm trying to say is, don't our rights basically take a back seat to more pressing needs (like restoring order) when martial law is declared, and it is perfectly legal.

[skipdup]

legion- IIRC, I'm pretty sure martial law has not been declared. One of the parish presidents said it was, but he doesn't have the authority. The disaster area in LA has not even been federalized by the governor, let alone martial law declared.

But, I think you're right... if martial law had been declared.

- Skip

[legion]

I'm so confused...

I assumed when the "shoot to kill" order was given regarding looters, that martial law had been declared.

[targa911S]

Yes legion you are right. However matial law has not been declared. I'll bet there are some nice old Colts in somebodys collection now.

[stevepaa]

"The state Attorney General's office on Tuesday sought to clarify reports in some media that "martial law' has been declared in parts of storm-ravaged southeast Louisiana, saying no such term exists in Louisiana law.
"But even though no martial law exists, Gov. Kathleen Blanco's declaration of a state of emergency gives authorities widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency..."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2125584 for more info

And I think JoeA has hit the nail on the head also. Owners will need to get a receipt hopefully, or have evidence of the confiscation to recover their arms.

[skipdup]

Thanks Steve!

Does anyone know if the federal gov't has the ability to declare martial law? Is it a state function (in states which have it in their law)? Or, is martial law simply a generic or layman term?

- Skip

[stevepaa]

This from the slate link

Martial law occurs when the military assumes police powers because local authorities and courts aren't functioning. Although the president usually imposes martial law, federal regulation allows for a "local commander" to do so "on the spot, if the circumstances demand immediate action." Federal armed forces are expected to relinquish these powers as soon as the local government is once again operable. During martial law, the military may arrest and try civilians, seize private property, and institute curfews, among other emergency powers.


Peter T. Not wanting to start a discussion on 2nd amendment, but current judgement is that the 2nd is a states rights not individual right.

[Peter T.]

Quoting Slate is roughly equivalent of me citing Fox News...

- under martial law perhaps, but was this ever declared in LA?

Steve, I'd be curious to know which current judgement you are referring to, since the constitution says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Seems pretty cut and dried to me... but I'm not trying to start something either.

[FrayAdjacent911]

I think with all the looting and rampant crime, it should illustrate that the police/govt IS NOT and CANNOT be there to protect YOU.

As far as the NG/Military/Feds confiscating weapons, I would ONLY agree with going along IF they were providing CONSTANT security for ME and my loved ones. Otherwise, don't even think about taking away my means of self defense.

And I'd only give them up if I got a receipt and had some way of getting them back. I have quite a bit of $$ in some of my weapons, and don't want to lose it.

[stevepaa]

Peter
I really don't have a cause in this, but when I was observing a moot court case that my daughter was participating in, it was clearly spelled out by the judge that the rulings of the supreme court were that "The purpose of the Amendment was not to protect individual citizens against disarmament by the states, but to protect state militias from disarmament by the federal government." Goes along with a lot of what I was taught so many years ago about how the founding fathers feared a big federal government. So I don't think it applies to individuals. But that doesn't mean that individuals cannot have guns. It would be a states issue.


It was just in this administration's time period that the administration came forward and went against that long standing position. But they don't make law, just express an administration opinion.


I do not know anything about slate, it was a link on martial law which seemed to be accurate to other links. Are there errors in the info?

[Jeff Higgins]

Sorry Steve, but I do not believe the Supreme Court has ever ruled definitively on the 2nd Ammendment. I would be very interested, as would many others, if you could point to a case. I may be wrong, but I'm affraid you and your daughter may be the victims of liberal idealism/revisionist history passed off as fact in whatever - I assume school - setting in which your daughter was involved.

[techweenie]

Siezing weapons from unoccupied houses that have been broken in to is probably defensible -- except that it's the authorities who are doing the breaking in, in a lot of instances. I'm expecting a lot of court battles will follow this.

But what I find more disturbing is new rumors that either (or both) the state & feds hired Blackwater private security forces into NO. These are the mercenaries who do bodyguard duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and essentially have a "license to kill." I have a lot less problem with our employing mercenary killers in the middle east than I do with them on American soil.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Peter T.
This does not sound like the America I know and love.


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38e21073582d.htm

From that article:

It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people.

Always had a problem with the logic in that sort of statement - no matter how heavily armed your populace is, the military could still throw its weight around successfully. Its purpose is to defeat another army, not the rabble.

Interestingly, Iraq kinda gives an indication both ways. The populace is pretty heavily armed, and - depending on who you believe - is either successful or not successful in rebelling against the "oppressors".

Even more interestingly, the article goes on to show how the Nazis instituted a death penalty for citizens in occupied countries for owning firearms. I'd guess the big fellas in the Pentagon would give their right ball for the same law to be applied in Iraq.

Even more interestingly, I suspect the US probably restricted private citizens rights to bear arms in Germany after winning the war there.

[targa911S]

The Blackwater group was hired by the private sector as security for the major interests. Banks, casinos, jewelry stores and majors like Nieman Marcus to protect their assets. They are pretty bad ass.

[stevepaa]

Jeff, my mistake. I did some more looking around. The supreme court has only ruled once, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia. In other appeals court cases the ability of local governments to restrict handguns was upheld becasue of Miller.

The moot court was at the courthouse actually. I don't think it is revisionist history. Up until this administration, I believe the opinion of each previous administration was that the 2nd was not addressing an individuals rights issue. But it is certainly confusing. Sometimes when I read some of the courts decisions it sounds like they are saying that an individual is gauranteed the right to only have an arm that would be part of a militia's arsenal. Particularly in the seventh appeals case of Morton Grove where they do not consider the 2nd as a states rights issue.

It just seems to me that maybe it says that the federal government can not restrict arms, but leaves it to the states to determine their ability and need to have their citizens armed to support a militia?